JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 9 th August, 2024 and decree prepared on 20 th August, 2024 and decree signed on 23.08.2024 whereby the Civil Appeal No.08 of 2022 has been dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa confirming the judgment dated 30 th June, 2022 and decree prepared on 30.06.2022 and signed on 05.07.2022 by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.)-II, Garhwa, passed in Title Suit No.43 of 2008. 3. Title Suit No.43 of 2008 was instituted by one Maheshwar Mahto/plaintiff for declaration of indefeasible right, title and interest over the suit land and for permanent injunction against the defendants and cost is also prayed which was decided in favour of the plaintiff by judgment dated 30 th June, 2022 when the decree was prepared and aggrieved to that the appellants/defendants has preferred the Civil Appeal No.08 of 2022 which was decided by judgment dated 09.08.2022 and by the said judgment the appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the learned trial court was affirmed. 4. Mr. Choubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that learned both the Courts have failed to appreciate the fact that the entire area of Khata No.54 which is the subject matter of Title Suit No.11 of 1991 was not claimed and only the share of land has been claimed and in view of that, that is the substantial question of law and this second appeal may kindly be admitted. 5. The said suit was instituted by the plaintiffs/respondents stating therein that Mathura Mahto S/o Sukhdeo Mahto of village- Sarkoni, P.S Majhiaon, Distt Garhwa had his share of ancestral land in village- Sarkoni and Bhilama, P S. Majhiaon, Distt – Garhwa. Mathura Mahto had no son and he had only four daughters Jirwa Devi, Premini Devi, Bimala Devi and Kamla Devi, who are married. Sheo Ratiya Devi was mother of Mathura Mahto, who was alive till the year 1988. Mathura Mahto had no son and he had only four daughters Jirwa Devi, Premini Devi, Bimala Devi and Kamla Devi, who are married. Sheo Ratiya Devi was mother of Mathura Mahto, who was alive till the year 1988. It is further averred that in 1986, 1987 and 1988 several persons conspired with Bimala Devi and Sheo Ratiya Devi to grab the land of Mathura Mahto and brought the sale deeds and deed of gift in existence purported to be executed by Mathura Mahto, and Sheo Ratiya Devi and subsequently to several others which have been mentioned in detailed in Schedule ’A. The deed of gift by Sheo Ratiya Devi and subsequently sale deeds to transfer the land to others were void ab-initio and similarly, the sale deed fraudulently obtained from Mathura Mahto was also void ab-initio. Subsequent deeds of transfer of such land by said transferees Sheo ratiya Devi and Mathura Mahto were also void which do not affect the convey of the land of Mathura Mahto. Mathura Mahto firstly cancelled the deeds alleged to be executed by him and thereafter, instituted the T.S. No. 10/1991 titled as Mathura Mahto Vrs. Udai Mahto & others and another T.S. No 11/1991 titled as Mathura Mahto Vrs. Saguni Devi & 18 others. Both the suits were for the declaration of deeds mentioned in Schedule ’A’ as void, illegal and without effect. It is further averred that Sale Deed No. 5745/1990 of Principal defendant no.1 the wife of Principal defendant no.2, was the subject of TS. 11/1991 which is relevant for the purpose of this suit. The land of Sale Deed No. 5745/1990 alleged to be executed by Bimala Devi in favour of Principal defendant no. 1. Indramani Devi contains the land 9‰ decimals in plot no. 31 and 10‰ decimals in plot no 32 under Khata no. 54 of village-Sarkoni PS Majhiaon, Distt. Garhwa, which is the subject matter of the suit Sale Deed no. 5745 of 1990 did not convey the right, title, interest and possession to the principal defendants as the sale deed of the suit land was not given effect for any purpose and for any point of time. Mathura Mahto remained in right, title, interest and possession of the suit land along with his other land, regularly and continuously for his all purposes. Mathura Mahto remained in right, title, interest and possession of the suit land along with his other land, regularly and continuously for his all purposes. After hearing of T.S. No. 11 of 1991 it has been decided that the sale deeds and deed of gift, the subject of the Title Suit No.11 of 1991 are not valid and genuine and the purchaser in deeds cannot claim title on the basis of deeds and the plaintiff Mathura Mahto continued in right, title and possession and accordingly the suit was decreed. The Sale Deed No.5745 of 1990 was within the subject of T.S. 11/1991. Another TS No. 10/1991 has been decided in favour of Mathura Mahto declaring that the deed of gift no 6770 dated 27.07 1987 purported to be executed by Mathura Mahto with respect to the suit land is ab-initio void and complete nullity, not having conveyed any interest of the suit land, the subject matter of the deed. Some of the defendants of TS 10/1991 and TS No. 11/1991 have filed Misc. Case No. 7 and 9 of 1995 for setting- aside the ex-parte order and decree within the knowledge of all the defendants of the T.S. No. 10/1991 and T.S. 11/1991 which they lost. They preferred Misc. Appeal No.1 of 2000 which also they lost. The judgment and decree of TS No. 11 of 1991 was also the subject of Misc Case No.10 of 1995 for setting aside the judgment and decree which has also been dismissed before 2000. The judgment and decree of T.S. 10/1991 and TS 11/1991 became absolute and conclusive which cannot be challenged in any proceeding of the court of law because of the lapse of the period. Thus, Mathura Mahto continued his right, title and possession of the land 3.17 acres of village Sarkoni and 3.64 acres in village-Bhilama. Till he transferred the entire area of land on 27 11.2006 to the plaintiff through registered Sale Deed No 8508 dated 27.11.2006 and put the plaintiff in right, title and possession thereof. After the acquisition of land by plaintiff through sale deed no. 8508/2006 in his right, title and possession, the defendants in absence of the plaintiff in first week of the month of March, 2008, got a small hut and room of mud and tiles constructed by encroaching upon the land area 0.09‰ acre of plot no. After the acquisition of land by plaintiff through sale deed no. 8508/2006 in his right, title and possession, the defendants in absence of the plaintiff in first week of the month of March, 2008, got a small hut and room of mud and tiles constructed by encroaching upon the land area 0.09‰ acre of plot no. 31 and 0.10‰ acre land of plot no. 32 under khata no. 54 of village- Sarkoni which was shown in the Sale Deed No. 5745/1990 executed by Bimala Devi in the name of defendant no 1 and such Sale Deed 5745/1990 has been declared void inoperative to alienate/convey the land in said deed in T.S. 11 of 1991. The plaintiff came in the village and found the high handedness of the principal defendants with the associate of the unsocial elements of the society. The defendants now have also started collecting materials, the bricks and sand in the portion of said land of plot no. 31 and 32. The land 0.09‰ acre of plot no. 31 and 0.10‰ acre of plot no. 32 under khata no 54 of village- Sarkoni is the subject-matter of the suit detailed in Schedule ’B’, hereinafter called the "suit land. The plaintiff has no claim against the proforma defendant no.3 but the plaintiff is the purchaser of the suit land along with other from the proforma defendants, hence, impleaded him as party to avoid the future complications. The plaintiff has acquired well established right, title and possession of the suit land and the act of the principal defendants 1 and 2 for encroachment and trespass over the suit land in March, 2008 is highly illegal and the construction of the room and hut and collection of the materials for further construction is and shall be their high handedness to cause the injury and loss and harassment to the plaintiff physically and financially in the multiplicity of the litigation in the court of law. It is further averred that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff in view of the facts contended aforesaid. The entire acts of the principal defendants in the matter of the case for encroachment and trespass are illegal. It is further averred that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiff in view of the facts contended aforesaid. The entire acts of the principal defendants in the matter of the case for encroachment and trespass are illegal. As the principal defendants have trespassed and encroached over the suit land, recently in March, 2008, and have collected materials, for further construction, they are liable to be evicted from the suit land under the process of the court. It is further averred that the cause of action arose on 05.03.2008, when the defendants enter upon the suit land and constructed room and hut and collected materials and on 10.03.2008 when the principal defendants refused to remove the materials and structure from the suit land within the jurisdiction of this court. For the purpose of court fee, the suit is valued at Rs. 7,000/- (Rs. Seven thousand) on which ad-valorem court fee of Rs.1096/- has been paid. Schedule ’A’ List of the Sale Deeds and Deed of Gift, the subject of T.S. No.10 1991 and T.S. No.11/1991, decided by the competent 1. Sale Deed No.6258 dated 22.07.1988 2. Sale Deed No.6257 dated 22.07.1988 3. Sale Deed No.5745 dated 06.07.1990 4. Sale Deed No.4435 dated 31.05.1990 5. Sale Deed No.4487 dated 01.06.1990 6. Sale Deed No.4488 dated 01.06.1990 7. Sale Deed No.9131 dated 28.11.1990 Schedule-’B’ Description of the suit land Village-Sarkoni, PS-Majhiaon, District- Garhwa Khata No. Plot No Area A.D. Boundary ---- ---- ---- ---- 54 31 0.09 1/2 N. – Plaintiff 54 32 0.10 1/4 S. – Rasta E. – Plaintiff W. - Plaintiff 6. Defendants’ appeared and filed their written statements. The first one has been filed jointly by the defendants Nos.1 & 2. The second one has been filed by defendant No.3. 7. The case of defendant Nos.1 & 2 according to their joint written statement is that the suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no cause of action for this suit and cause of action mentioned in plaint is false, wrong and baseless. The suit is barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppels and acquiescence The suit is also bad for mis-joinder of party as well as non-joinder of necessary party. The suit is also barred under section 34 of Specific Relief Act. The suit is barred by law of limitation, waiver, estoppels and acquiescence The suit is also bad for mis-joinder of party as well as non-joinder of necessary party. The suit is also barred under section 34 of Specific Relief Act. This suit is undervalued as the proper value of suit land is not less than two lakh fifty thousand rupees (Rs 2,50,000/-) because of the fact that residential house of defendant nos.1 & 2 is also situated over the suit land and the suit land is best valuable land. That there is no land on spot as per the boundary given in schedule of the plaint and as such the boundary of suit land as given in schedule of the plaint is incorrect and wrong, the correct boundary of suit land is as follows:- Village Khata no. Plot No Area (A.D.) Boundary Sarkoni 54 31 0.009 1/2 Acre N.-– Udal Mahto & Sunil Mahto S. – Rasta E. – Plot No.52 W. - Jagdish Mahto North - Udal Mahto & Sunil Mahto West – Jagdish Mahto Plot No.31 Plot No.32 East – Jagdish Mahto 0.009½ Acre 0.10¼ Acre South – Rasta Grade III Road A. The above referred boundary of suit land may be inquired into and verified through spot verification by appointing Commissioner for the same. Giving of wrong and false boundary of suit land itself proves that the claim of plaintiff over suit land is totally false, wrong and baseless. The suit in also barred by the principle of adverse possession. These defendants are coming in possession over suit land since 06.07.1990 and they are in its occupation exclusively and their exclusive possession since then is continuous, regular, uninterrupted, hostile, open, and against the will of the plaintiff or Mathura Mahto. These defendants have also constructed their residential house over the suit land and they are living and residing therein with the family. As such, their possession since 06.07.1990 over suit land perfected their right, title and interest over it through completing statutory period. It is admitted that Mathura Mahto had no son but only four daughters, namely, Jirwa Devi, Premani Devi, Bimla Devi and Kamla Devi and the name of mother of Mathura Mahto is Sheoratia Devi but other contents of para no. 1 and 2 of the plaint is wrong, false and baseless hence denied. It is admitted that Mathura Mahto had no son but only four daughters, namely, Jirwa Devi, Premani Devi, Bimla Devi and Kamla Devi and the name of mother of Mathura Mahto is Sheoratia Devi but other contents of para no. 1 and 2 of the plaint is wrong, false and baseless hence denied. In fact, Sukhdeo Mahto, the father of Mathura Mahto had landed property in village- Sarkoni and Bhilma and he had absolute raiyati night title and interest over it. Sukhdeo Mahto died leaving behind his widow Sheoratia Devi, a son Mathura Mahto and two daughters Kayeeli Devi and Neuri @ Saguni Devi in which Neuri @ Saguni Devi was elder than her brother and sister. The genealogy of Sukhdeo Mahto is essential for proper appreciation of this case which is as follows :- B. After death of Sukhdeo Mahto, when Sheoratiya Devi became widow, her sole son Mathura Mahto began to neglect his mother and did not take any care of his widow mother in her maintenance and to meet her need and necessity. In such state of affairs Neuri @ Saguni Devi, the daughter of Sheoratiya Devi began to maintain her and also began to take care of her need and necessity. Sheoratiya Devi had share in the landed property of her deceased husband Sukhdeo Mahto (situated in village Sarkoni and Bhilma). So Sheoratiya Devi made gift of the land of her share of village - Sarkoni and Bhilma to her daughter Neuri @ Saguni Devi and transferred the same to her through executing Gift Deed No. 3513 dated 08.04.1986 and delivered its right, title and possession to her. As such, Neuri @ Saguni Devi acquired valid right, title, interest and possession over this land. Subsequently, Neuri @ Saguni Devi transferred half area of her so acquired land (i.e., 89…decimal of land of village - Sarkoni and 82‰ dec. land of village Bhilma) to Gopal Krishna Trivedi, Arvind Kumar Trivedi, Satendra Kumar Trivedi, Arun Kumar Trivedi and Akhilesh Trivedi on proper consideration through executing sale deed on 21.03.1988 and also transferred remaining half area of her so acquired, land, 89… decimal of land of village Sarkoni and 82‰ decimal land of village Bhilma) to Ambika Singh, Ram Pravesh Singh, Shambhunath Singh, Sachchida Nand Singh and Kuldeep Narayan Singh on proper consideration through executing sale deed No.21.03.1988. Later on, Gopal Krishna Trivedi and others transferred their land so acquired from Neuri @ Saguni Devi to Jagdish Mahto who is the husband of Jira Devi (daughter of Mathura Mahto) by executing Sale Deed No. 6238 dated 22-07-1988. Ambika Singh and others also transferred their land so acquired from Neuri @ Saguni Devi to Bimla Devi wife of Suneshwar Mahto and daughter of Mathura Mahto by executing Sale Deed No. 6257 on 22.07 1988. C. It was further contended that as Mathura Mahto had no son so he also made gift of his landed property to his daughter’s son Sunil Kumar Mahto (son of Jira Devi and Jagdish Mahto) and Udal Mahto (son of Bimla Devi and Suneshwar Mahto) by executing gift deeds in their favour. D. Out of the land so acquired as referred above, Jagdish Mahto and his son Sunil Kumar Mahto have also transferred 0.30‰ acre land of plot no. 134, 135, 136, 811 and 812 of village Sarkoni on proper consideration to Jagarnath Prasad Mahto of village Ranadih by executing Sale Deed No. 4435 dated 31.05.1990. Jagdish Mahto out of his so acquired land through Sale Deed No. 6258 dated 22.07.1988 transferred 0/12 acre land of plot no 32 under Khata no. 54 of village-Sarkoni on proper consideration to Ram Awtar Sah of village Semaura through Sale Deed No. 9131 dated 28.11.1990. Bimla Devi and Udal Mahto through his father Suneshwar Mahto have also transferred 0.37 acre of plot no: 170 and 171 under Khata No. 54 and 0.30‰ acre of plot nos. 134, 135, 136 under khata no. 54 and plot nos. 811, 812 under khata no. 28 of village Sarkoni on proper consideration to Jiwesh Pd. Gupta, Dharamraj Pd Mahto, Satendra Pd. Mehta and Upendra Pd. Mehta sons of Jagarnath Pd. Mehta of village Ranadih through Sale Deed No 4487 and 4488 both dated 01.06 1990. On the basis of all these purchasers, namely, Jagarnath Prasad Mehta and his sons Jiweish Prasad Gupta and others and Ram-Awtar Sah are enjoying their exclusive possession respectively over their above referred purchased land and this fact may be inquired into through appointing Commissioner. All the above referred deeds of transfer are valid, legal, and effective and conferred valid, right, title and interest to its respective transferees. All the above referred deeds of transfer are valid, legal, and effective and conferred valid, right, title and interest to its respective transferees. To adjudicate the matter in controversy of this suit the presence of above named transferers and transferees are necessary and in their absence the matter in controversy cannot be adjudicated effectively and completely and as such, this suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. E. It was further contended that once a deed of transfer is executed by executants, transferring the right, title and interest to transferee from the property of executants, he (executants) no more remain capable of dealing with such property after transfer is made and so if document for cancellation is executed the same cannot have any force over the deed of transfer already executed. Hence, the act of Mathura Mahto to cancel the deed of transfer executed by him is arbitrary, wrong, illegal and was his unitary act, and such cancellation deed has no any force or effect, as it is quite illegal and ineffective. These defendants have no any knowledge or information in respect of Title Suit No. 10 of 1991 or Title Suit No. 11 of 1991 or in respect of the proceeding or judgment or decree if any, in respect of T.S. No 10 of 1991 or T.S. No 11 of 1991 nor there was any service of summon of the suit against these defendants hence, any order, judgment or decree, if any passed in T.S. No. 10/1991 or T.S. 11/1991 has/have no any binding effect over the right, title and interest of these defendants over suit land. Hence, contrary to what has been stated above, contents of para no. 3 of the plaint is hereby denied as false and wrong. F. That as stated above, Bimla Devi had acquired 0.89… acres land of village Sarkoni and 0.82 acre land of village Bhilma from Ambika Singh and his brothers through Sale Deed No 6257 dated 22.07 1988 and came in its possession. Thereafter out of her so acquired land Bimla Devi, wife of Suneshwar Mahto and daughter of Mathura Mahto transferred the suit land to defendant Indramani Devi-through Sale Deed No.5745 dated 06.07.1990 on proper consideration and delivered the possession of suit land to him. They are coming in possession over suit land by defendant no. 1 and her husband defendant no. Thereafter out of her so acquired land Bimla Devi, wife of Suneshwar Mahto and daughter of Mathura Mahto transferred the suit land to defendant Indramani Devi-through Sale Deed No.5745 dated 06.07.1990 on proper consideration and delivered the possession of suit land to him. They are coming in possession over suit land by defendant no. 1 and her husband defendant no. 2 since 06.07.1990 is well within the knowledge of plaintiff Maheshwar Mahto, who is husband of Preman Devi (daughter of Mathura Mahto) within the knowledge of this plaintiff. These defendants also constructed their residential house over the suit land and began to live therein with family members which is continued up to this day and remaining land is being used by these defendants as their Sahan and Gharbari. These defendants have no any other residential house except the house situated over suit land. As such these defendants are coming in actual physical possession over suit land continuously, regularly, openly and uninterruptedly and hostile to the plaintiff since 06.07.1990 and this occupation and possession of these defendants over the suit land is well within the knowledge of plaintiff. Therefore, these defendants have perfected their right, title and interest over suit land by way of adverse possession against the plaintiff. As stated above, these defendants have/had no any knowledge or information in respect of T.S. No. 11 of 1991 nor any summon of the suit was ever served upon them, so order judgment or decree if any passed in the suit has no any binding effect on right, title and interest of these defendants over suit land. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not stated that whether he was party of T.S. No. 11 of 1991. Contrary to what nave been stated above, contents of para no. 4 of the plaint is denied as false and wrong. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not stated that whether he was party of T.S. No. 11 of 1991. Contrary to what nave been stated above, contents of para no. 4 of the plaint is denied as false and wrong. G. As stated above, Mathura Mahto never came in possession of suit land nor he ever got right, title or interest over it before 06.07.1990 as Bimla Devi wife of Suneshwar Mahto and daughter of Mathura Mahto had acquired valid right, title and interest over the suit land through Sale Deed No. 6257 dated 22.07.1988 and she was in rightful possession over suit land before 06.07 1988 and Bimla Devi has rightly transferred the same to defendant no 1 through Sale Deed No 5745 dated 06.07.1990 and delivered it’s right, title and possession over it. As such, these defendants came in possession over suit land on 06.07.1990 which is continuing up to this day and the residential house of these defendants is situated over it and they are residing therein with family. Therefore, these defendants have perfected their right title and interest over suit land. As such, Mathura Mahto had remained no right, title, interest or possession over suit land before 06.07.1990 or thereafter. Hence, contrary to what have been stated above, contents of para no. 5 of the plaint is hereby denied as false and wrong. H. As stated above, these defendants have no any information or knowledge in respect of Title Suit No. 11 of 1991 or Title Suit No. 10 of 1991 or Misc. Nos. 7, 9 and 10 of 1995 of Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2000, nor any summon of the suit was ever served upon them and so any order judgment or decree passed in the above suit/appeal or miscellaneous case has no any binding effect on these defendants. It has not been mentioned that in which court this suit was instituted and on which date it was decided and what was its subject-matter. In fact, Mathura Mahto was not in possession over suit land before or after 06.07.1990 as he had no right, title or interest over it. It has not been mentioned that whether plaintiff was party in all these cases contrary to what have been stated above, contents of para nos. 6 to 8 of the plaint is hereby denied as false and wrong. It has not been mentioned that whether plaintiff was party in all these cases contrary to what have been stated above, contents of para nos. 6 to 8 of the plaint is hereby denied as false and wrong. I. The contents of para nos. 9 to 15 of plaint is false, wrong and baseless, hence denied. As stated above, the above-named transferees/purchasers are coming in actual possession over their respective acquired land. The Sale Deed No.8508 dated 27.11.2006 said to be executed by Mathura Mahto in favour of the plaintiff is showy forged, fake, wrong, false and illegal documents and through such documents plaintiff never acquired right, title or possession over any piece of land much less over suit land as Mathura Mahto had no right title interest or possession over it. As stated above, the residential house of these defendants is situated over suit land which has been constructed by them and they are living therein with family. So it is false to allege that these defendants constructed a small hut and mud built room over suit land in March 2008. As stated above, these defendants are coming in actual physical possession over suit land since 06.07.1990 regularly, continuously, openly, uninterruptedly and within the knowledge of all concerned persons much less Mathura Mahto and plaintiff and as such these defendants have perfected the right, title and interest through completing statutory period by way of adverse possession against the plaintiff and Mathura Mahto. These defendants are landless and their residential house is over suit land. These defendants have not encroached the suit land but they are in its possession since 06.07.1990 and their house situated over suit land is also seventeen years old. J. It is further contended that Mathura Mahto had/has no interest over suit land and he has wrongly been impleaded in the suit and so this suit is bad for mis-joinder of party. K. As stated above, plaintiff has never got any interest over suit land, nor he ever came in its possession for any moment and the alleged Sale Deed No. 8508 dated 27.11.2006 has always remained ineffective and inoperative in respect of suit land and through such ineffective sale deed the plaintiff never acquired any interest over suit land, nor came in its possession for any moment. Therefore, all the claims of plaintiff over suit land is false, wrong and baseless and he has no right, title or interest over suit land, nor he ever entered in its possession or occupied it for any moment. Hence, submitted that this suit is false, frivolous and vexatious, hence fit to be dismissed with cost. 8. The case of proforma defendant No. 3 according to his written statement dated 12.12.2008 is that the plaintiff is the son- in-law of the defendant no. 3 who has transferred his land to the plaintiff through Sale Deed No. 8508 dated 27.11.2006 including the suit land and put him in right, title and possession of the same. The plaintiff is the actual rightful owner of the suit and in the absence of plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 and 2 entered upon the land of plaintiff and constructed a small hut and tried to extend the same over the suit land. The defendant no.1 and 2 have lost their case and claim over the suit land in the competent civil court. The plaintiff has valid cause of action for the suit and the same is maintainable. Defendant no. 3 admits all the facts contained in para-1 to 17 of the plaint and supports the case of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to mention that the defendant no.3, though appeared in the suit and filed his written statement, but he admitted the case of the plaintiff and never contested the suit. 9. The learned trial court has framed eight issues for deciding the suit. Issue No.5 was with regard to right, title and interest over the suit property and issue No.6 was with regard to illegally trespassing into the suit property by the principal defendant, these two issues along with issue No.7 and 8 was decided by the learned Court simultaneously as all these issues were interlocked. While deciding the said issue, the learned trial court has appreciated the oral and documentary evidences. 10. P.W. 1 – Maheshwar Mahto is the plaintiff of the suit property and he has stated that total area of the disputed land is 19(cid:190) decimals which has encroached upon by Indramani Devi and her husband Raghubir Prajapati and they have also constructed a room of mud when he was away from village - Sarkoni by claiming the same as their purchased land. He has further deposed that after request, these defendants did not vacate the land hence, present suit was instituted. He has stated that the disputed land as well as some other lands of Mathura Mahto was purchased by him and he is in possession of the same. He has further deposed that earlier some sale deeds as well as gift deed were executed against which Mathura Mahto had filed two cases being Title Suit No.10/1991 and Title Suit No.11/1991 which were declared null and void and not binding upon Mathura Mahto. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are claiming the disputed land on the basis of those gift deed and sale deed. Mathura Mahto was his father-in-law who was in need of money at the time of illness and paralysis of his wife, therefore, he has stated that Mathura Mahto sold his land to him and he came in right, title and possession over the same. The said land has also been mutated in his name and rent receipt is also being issued in his name. During his cross-examination, he has deposed in para-7 that his house is situated at village- Sarkoni and his old house is situated at Barwadih but he does not reside there. He has further deposed in para 10 that khata No. of disputed plot is 54 and plot nos. 31 & 32. Total area of land is said to be 19(cid:190) decimals. In paragraph No.11, he has stated that the boundary of disputed land of plot No.32 is north, east & west, his own land south-road. In paragraph No.13, he has stated that the disputed land is situated in the same boundary. In paragraph No.18, it has been disclosed that he cannot tell the plot nos. of the land situated in the north, west or east of the disputed land. In paragraph No.21, it has been disclosed that Mathura Mahto is son of Sukhdeo Mahto who had died prior to attainment of his sense. Sheoratiya was widow of Sukhdeo Mahto. He further stated in paragraph No.22 that Sheoratiya had two daughters and one son Neuri @ Saguni, Kaylee and Mathura Mahto. Mathura Mahto had four daughters Jirwa, Premani, Bimla and Kamla. Jagdish Mahto is husband of Jirwa and Sunil Mahto is son of Jirwa. Suneshwar Mahto is husband of Bimla and Udal Mahto is son of Bimla. He further stated in paragraph No.22 that Sheoratiya had two daughters and one son Neuri @ Saguni, Kaylee and Mathura Mahto. Mathura Mahto had four daughters Jirwa, Premani, Bimla and Kamla. Jagdish Mahto is husband of Jirwa and Sunil Mahto is son of Jirwa. Suneshwar Mahto is husband of Bimla and Udal Mahto is son of Bimla. He is husband of Premani and one of the son-in-law of Mathura Mahto. Sukhdeo Mahto had lands in village Sarkoni and Bhilma. 11. PW-2 Kameshwar Prasad Mehta has supported the case of the plaintiff as well as PW-3 Ram Nandan Mahto and further PW-4 Risheshwar Pandey as well as PW-5 Dev Narain Shukla and he was the formal witness and he has identified Government Rent Receipt No.1628709 issued in handwriting of Halka Karmachari, Bijendra Upadhaya, whose signature and handwriting has been identified by him and further identified Government Rent Receipt No.838152 issued in handwriting of Halka Karmachari, Rajendra Ojha, whose signature and handwriting has been identified by him and the same has been marked as Ext.-7 and 7/A. 12. PW-6 Krishna Tiwari has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the registered sale deed No.8508 dated 27.11.2006 has been instituted by Mathura Mahto in favour of Maheshwar Mahto. The sale deed was drafted by Shiv Shankar Sao, Tayid on the instruction of Mathura Mahto and the same was read over to both the parties. Thereafter, Mathura Mahto had put his left thumb impression on the same. The same was witnessed by Jitendra Yadav and Umesh Prajapati. 13. PW-7 Pravin Kumar Singh has identified registered cancellation deed No.2146 dated 21.03.1990 against Udal Mahto written by deed writer Gopal Prasad. He further deposed in his examination-in-chief that the same was written in his presence and read over to Mathura Mahto who had put his left thumb impression over the same. The deed was paginated in his presence by Bipat Mahto and the same was signed as witness by Parikha Singh and Srinath Choubey. Deed writer-Gopal Prasad had also put the signature of the same. The cancellation deed is marked as Exhibit-9. 14. DW-1 Raghubir Prajapati, DW-2 Sateshar Tiwary, DW-3 Suneshar Mahto, DW-4 Saryu Prajapati, DW-5 Nageshwar Saw, DW- 6 Dilip Kumar Dwivedi, DW-7 Ramchandra Prasad was further considered by learned trial court. 15. Deed writer-Gopal Prasad had also put the signature of the same. The cancellation deed is marked as Exhibit-9. 14. DW-1 Raghubir Prajapati, DW-2 Sateshar Tiwary, DW-3 Suneshar Mahto, DW-4 Saryu Prajapati, DW-5 Nageshwar Saw, DW- 6 Dilip Kumar Dwivedi, DW-7 Ramchandra Prasad was further considered by learned trial court. 15. Considering all these aspects, the learned trial court has found that there is no contesting defendants regarding the specific date from when their possession became adverse to the knowledge of the plaintiff. After becoming the true owner of the suit land and not only this but the defendants have also does not admit that the owner of the suit land is the plaintiff or is predecessor in interest. 16. The learned Court has further appreciated that the plaintiff has adduced Exhibit-5 and Exhibit-5/A which is the certified copy of order and decree respectively passed in Title Suit No.11/1991 and on perusal of the said the learned Court has found that Bimla Devi was defendant No.12 and Indramani Devi was defendant No.19 in that suit and the said suit was filed by Mathura Mahto, who is defendant No.3 in the present case and defendant No.3 was found to be predecessor-in-interest of the title over the suit land as held in Title Suit No.11/1991 (Ext.-5). In para-3 of Exhibit-5 after service of notices defendants appeared and later on did not turn up in the case and ultimately the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing. In para- 5 it has been concluded that the sale deeds as well as gift deed is not valid and genuine as the executants have executed more than of their share and on the basis all the sale deeds and gift deed, purchasers cannot claim title rather the plaintiff perfected his title. The suit is decreed ex-parte without cost. 17. Exhibit-4 is another certified copy of the decree passed in Title Suit No.10 of 1991 wherein Gift Deed No.6770 dated 27.07.1987 executed by Mathura Mahto in favour of Udal Mahto & Sunil Mahto has been declared void ab-initio which also relates to the Khata No.54, Plot No.31, area 0.38 decimals and Plot No.32 area 0.41 which were also the subject matter of the said gift deed which has been declared void. Ext.-6 is the order dated 11.03.1999 passed in Misc. Case No.07/1995 and Misc. Case No.09/1995 through which both the Misc. Ext.-6 is the order dated 11.03.1999 passed in Misc. Case No.07/1995 and Misc. Case No.09/1995 through which both the Misc. Cases are dismissed which were filed for setting aside the ex-parte order and decree passed and for restoration of the same to its original file and the Title Suit No.10/1991 Ext-9 was the cancellation deed executed by Mathura Mahto for cancellation of Gift Deed No.6770 dated 27.07.1987 executed by Mathura Mahto in favour of Udal Mahto and Sunil Mahto. All these facts have also been corroborated by the oral evidences. 18. The learned trial court further appreciated Exhibits 5, 5/A, Exhibits-2, 2/A, Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-6 which are certified copy of order and decree passed in Title Suit No.11 of 1991, certified copy of petition filed by Jagdish Mehta and Bimla Devi registered as Misc. Case No.10 of 1995 in Title Suit No.11 of 1991 order passed in Misc. Case No.10 of 1995, certified copy of order passed in Misc. Appeal No.1 of 2000 and certified copy of order passed in Misc. Case No.7 of 1995 in Misc. Case No.9 of 1995 respectively and from there the learned Court has come to a finding in view of the documentary and oral evidences, the plaintiff has been able to establish that he has got valid right, title and interest over the suit property and principal defendants illegally tress-passed and encroached upon the suit land and are occupying thereon and, therefore, they should be evicted by the process of the Court and the judgment of Title Suit No.10 of 1991 and 11 of 1991 are binding upon the party and the same has been passed in accordance with law in light of those issues have been decided in favour of the plaintiff and by judgment dated 30 th June, 2022 the suit was dismissed against that the appeal has been preferred before the learned Principal District Judge, Garhwa in Civil Appeal No.8 of 2022 by judgment dated 09 th August, 2024 the learned appellate court has further dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned trial court. The learned appellate court has further framed the point to decide the appeal and answered the same and dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the learned trial court. 19. The two Courts have given the concurrent finding, the facts have been rightly appreciated. The learned appellate court has further framed the point to decide the appeal and answered the same and dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the learned trial court. 19. The two Courts have given the concurrent finding, the facts have been rightly appreciated. There is no perversity in the judgments of the learned Courts and in absence of any substantial question of law for admitting the second appeal, the High Court is not required to re-appreciate the facts. There is no illegality in the judgment of learned both the courts, as such this second appeal is dismissed.